It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: roadgravel
Almost everyone knows if you can get a look at the universe from far enough away, it looks like the face of jesus and it is crying. That is why his face is also seen on toast, tortillas and Cheetos. The small mirrors the large.


Dude. This was so mind blowing Steven Hawking just got up and walked.


I occasional have one of these insights. No journal will publish them though. I think the established community is paranoid.


edit on 12/25/2015 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Maybe we should request AMA with Stephen Hawkins???



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rickymouse

... so, we should have remained sitting in the mud, weaving fetishes from twine and bone to make the monsters stay away?

What's your alternative to science?


Real science. Researching things here on earth that we can actually prove or disprove. Things we need to have, not things that really do not need to be known. It isn't science that is wrong, it is that much of the things they research are on the wrong path and a lot of money is being spent on things we do not really need to know. Remember, someone has to pay for that research, money does not grow on trees. The taxpayer and consumer pays for everything.

I see no problem with developing better cleaner energy sources or simplifying things to improve efficiency. It seems that instead of making things simple, they are complicating everything.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

If I remember correctly they postulated a theory that Time itself and the speed of light were not constant at the very beginning of the universe
, obviously that mean's they really do not have a clue and what they are doing is what most theoretician's do.

You have a house of card's, it stand's and you don't want to pull it down as it would mean you have to start all over again and that is the current theory's which actually don't fit as snuggly as they would have you believe.

So in order not to knock it over they make there little house of card's additions tailored to what they see that work's (ie the current accepted theory's) and so tailor there new additions so that they fit without messing the whole thing up but every now and then a theorist come's along whom say's "ah what the heck" and he knock's a bit of the house of card's over and rebuilds it more in line with what he THINK's is correct.

The universe is not numbers, yes mathematics can be used to model it and even simulated it but only at macro scale as the true microscopic and true super macroscopic scales are too complex with too many variables and too much uncertainty.

Hence Uncertainty theory and Chaos Theory which are actually stop gap's to plug flaw's in there current theory's so that they can get on with modelling new theory's built upon the already therefore proven flawed theory's that preceded them.

Now I can certainly understand how this is useful, take a much simpler science/engineering application that uses impossible numbers as algebraic substitutes in order to make impossible equation's work, in electronics simple J notation is used were J represents an impossible number the square root of minus one but it serves as in the equation's it is cancelled out and the end sum is the correct value so in one sense the scientists may have everything wrong but they are still producing workable theory's that work at this level of science if not the actually correct primal answers about the origin and creation of the universe.

So yes I accept and also believe they are utterly wrong but it is like I say a kind of grand Algebraic substitute to make there otherwise untenable but functional theory's work.

John333
Sorry red shift and field displacement do not do it for me as answers but they are certainly good ones if they are like trying to fit a larger square peg into a smaller round hole, somewhere I suspect one of those physicists was a doctor who fanatic whom got inspired by N dimensional theory.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I have no problem with focusing our efforts on making life better here on Earth; and haven't claimed anything differently.

Science, even rarified science that seems to be doing nothing for us, often provides unexpected benefits.

Space-travel technologies ---> modern synthetic materials, computers, etc.

How will we know which area of research will provide the next great benefit to Humankind?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Dark matter & dark energy are just placeholders for something science can't explain, which, incidentally make up what, 96% of everything in the universe?

How can anyone have anything down as a FACT when you can't explain 96% of what you study? It's like the three blind men describing an elephant, they're all correct.

Further, IF the universe is 13 plus billion years old, and mankind has only been around for 30K years, (of which how much of that time has blessed us with any scientific observations on the universe) what's the math on that? It's a ridiculously minuscule amount of time to have an opinion about anything. (Let alone a theory)

Personally, I like the idea of time moving faster in the early universe, explains & clears up alot of things for me, and it has its proponents, but at the end of the day there are too many egos & attitudes involved. "I don't know" isn't a foolish or dumb thing to say, it really isn't. I wish more ppl would get that, but its not in our nature I guess.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: John333

Except, the only one that believes this is you.

Ergo, BS.


Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(note this does not mean the PLANET EARTH) it means.. matter in particles

2 And the earth was without form, and void;
(confirming it was formless, thus not a planet. this thus refers to matter which when clumped together will form land masses. EARTH in this sense is like when it is used in the sentence "having a box of dirt" is the same as saying "having a box of earth" the earth thus referring to here in Genesis 1 is the very atoms. and ABSOLUTELY NOT REFERRING TO A PLANET OR THIS PLANET EARTH. it refers to the the very particles that make up matter.

2 and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(AFTER the universe was created and matter was created, it was still dark.)

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(ENERGY was introduced through that spirit that passed over the face of the deep. the word deep being used as a symbolic metaphor which refers to dark space as a type of "water".)

the parallel with the big bang theory is clear. the only issue is the big bang theory has omissions in it's theory. but both have established.

1. matter existed before the big bang
2. matter was in a particle and/or gaseous state before taking shape and order of planets and solar systems etc.
3. at the start the universe was in darkness

then we have the gaps where science and religion seem to contradict eachother in theories.

1. religion says, a sentient creator with purposeful intention is responsible for matter being spread throughout the universe
1b. science says, it doesnt know what the catalyst is but they are expecting an automaton.

within the topic of 1-1b the debate rages on where even if science identifies an automated catalyst then we all know that it would require a precatalyst, and a pre-pre catalyst etc and it wouldnt end. from a logical standpoint however. a sentient catalyst needs no pre-catalyst as it contains within itself both the creativity/intent/will as well as the ability to provide logical assessment. a stone cannot move itself. but a man or living thing can. it can also move the stone which has no will of its own. as we know.. an object if standing still cannot move unless an external force is acted upon it. that external force has to come from something that is moving.. and for it to be moving, an external force had to act upon it too not so. so it never ends. unless the first actor is sentient itself.

2 Religion states that a Sentient creator set laws to how the universe was going to form and maintain planets and solar systems. with a firmament. dividing the "Waters of space/deep" from the water of seas. by gathering the "earth" and water into "forms" which are held that way by a firmament. firmament meaning every division and definition. E.I The Laws of Physics
2b Science does not presume to know where and why the laws of physics came to be for this universe. the laws just exist. they are more assertive to assume that noone and nothing set the laws. again, searching for an automaton response. avoiding completely the possibility of sentience.


that's all really. what is worthy to note is that scientific theory lines up with proper interpretation of scripture for what has been produced so far concerning the creation and order of events in the creation of the universe. because mysticism has a real true foundation in understanding this whole universe without the advanced scientific tools we have at our disposal today. it gave birth to science as science was born out of mysticism. and the successful mystics got it all right. there is a universal key which provides the ability to generate sentences that can be true on many levels and applications. it is a true key and good for testing scientific theory. it can narrow down conjecture and eliminate waste. predicting which theories will fail and which will succeed is the result.
edit on 25-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What possible benefit is there to pretending that we can figure out how the universe was formed? I just took an online class on this subject to see if I could believe it is possible but the instructor, a notable Physicist with ties to CERN, wouldn't even acknowledge that the big bang was real. He just stated it was a widely accepted theory and that there were other reputable theories out there that were possibly correct but not so widely accepted.

What is acceptable and what is not? Researching how the universe was formed when there are thousands of possibilities and we cannot possibly answer that question from this point in space. Most people who believe in the big bang have been led to believe a lie, the lie being that we know how it was formed. Science can be as much of a scam as some religions are.

Like I said, researching things that benefit human kind and actually help sustain our ecosystem is what is important. Science to help us feed ourselves has gone astray also, corruption and misinformation plagues the field and this is because of profits most times. Science is used against the regular guy more than it benefits us. It is used to control us more than to benefit us.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Phatdamage

I believe you are referencing cosmic inflation which could explain both the rapid expansion as well as the relatively uniform distribution of matter in the universe.


redshift and field displacement. field displacement being the dodgiest suggestion of the 2. they believe that space itself is expanding.. like the universe is making "dark matter" in between galaxies and thats whats causing them to spread out.

im going to have to dig up the thread where we had this discussion. cuz eventually some science guy is gonna come in here and that's where the discussion is gonna go to. not that im not a science guy too. im just more balanced in my approach and unbiasness to other avenues of data collection and observation let's say.


Dark energy is the force that seems to push galaxies away from one another (at an accelerating pace) and dark matter appears to hold stars in galactic orbits.


but that doesn't make sense really, where does the energy come from? ... I mean, ever since the Big Bang (supposing it actually happened) the acceleration HAS TO slow down as the energy decreases and the entropy increases...
I mean, it's should not be possible for the universe to expand at any accelerating pace.......

it doesn't make sense at all, the only sensible way to think about it, is that it's some kind of a hoax, either a simulation or a hologram or whatever



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Necrose

energy cannot be created nor destroyed remember?

always keep the basics in mind and ull know when ur steering off course.

dark energy is what i call potential matter.. operating at a frequency above the oscillation level that this physical universe can manifest. it all boils down to everything i was saying earlier. the code is in the scriptures and the full answers to everything are there. effectively, we could convert dark energy not just into photons but any particle we want by generating the relative field of what we want to manifest.

dark matter is believed to have particle properties but it is off base. because there is no universal particle u can convert into other particles. dark matter theory seems to me like the search for a blank particle u can fill in how u want. but the universe has demonstrated how particles form. as i have interpreted from scripture....

particles can be formed by a field, generated by a frequency, that manifests the particle within the area affected by the field out of apparent empty space. this empty space i say is the ever present dark energy which carries both attributes of energy and force which are not observed in it's dormant state. the field will establish a firmament in which the particle will maintain it's form and manifest the quantum particles within as one creation. attempting to build an atom from it's inner parts is thus an unfeasible exploration.

edit on 25-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Necrose



I mean, it's should not be possible for the universe to expand at any accelerating pace.......

it doesn't make sense at all, the only sensible way to think about it, is that it's some kind of a hoax, either a simulation or a hologram or whatever


In Galileo's time it was not considered possible that the Earth could move. It didn't make any sense. Can you feel the Earth move? Can you see it move? The only thing that made sense was that everything else moved.

Galileo (the first real scientist) didn't know how it could happen. He didn't know how gravity works. He didn't know why or how, but he did know that the Earth moves around the Sun. Either that or maybe it was some kind of hoax, or a simulation, or a hologram, or whatever. That's the only sensible way to look at it. Ignore the observations because they don't "make sense." Right?

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

What possible benefit could there be in trying to orbit the earth? Or go to the Moon?

You seem to be discounting anything you can't currently imagine.

I have no issue with your focus on humanity; I'm just saying, why limit knowledge?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Gryphon66

What possible benefit is there to pretending that we can figure out how the universe was formed? I just took an online class on this subject to see if I could believe it is possible but the instructor, a notable Physicist with ties to CERN, wouldn't even acknowledge that the big bang was real. He just stated it was a widely accepted theory and that there were other reputable theories out there that were possibly correct but not so widely accepted.

What is acceptable and what is not? Researching how the universe was formed when there are thousands of possibilities and we cannot possibly answer that question from this point in space. Most people who believe in the big bang have been led to believe a lie, the lie being that we know how it was formed. Science can be as much of a scam as some religions are.

Like I said, researching things that benefit human kind and actually help sustain our ecosystem is what is important. Science to help us feed ourselves has gone astray also, corruption and misinformation plagues the field and this is because of profits most times. Science is used against the regular guy more than it benefits us. It is used to control us more than to benefit us.



I think you touched on a key point here most don't/won't address and that is how much of this topic is agenda driven? More importantly, how many things AREN'T (if any) agenda driven? Do the facts support the current theories, or are the current theories made up to support agendas?

Take a look at pyramids as a quick example. (not the new age crap, but the actual histories) "Archaeologists" insist it was built by Khufu, around 2400 bc, yes? No hieroglyphics inside it mind you, and some geologists swear there is evidence that the bedrock around the Sphinx shows it to be carved around 13,000 b.c.

Same thing with Nephilim tribes, ancient America, Indian folklore, six fingered giants, etc.

In short, how much of history is manufactured to support an agenda to support our current paradigm & why?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Signals

But maybe we made it or build it to escape from something...interesting thought



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Signals
It's all a fake, a hologram, the entire "universe." It's the most intricate simulation that will ever be observed. It only exits because we can observe it.

The real question is why are we here and how can we escape it.


Let's say, for arguments sake you're right, what would be the point of such a grand deception? Why not just have a vast expanse of nothing as far as the eye can see, what better way to discourage our race from expanding beyond our little blue ball?

I still like the theory that we, as a race were so war like that other races wantes us destroyed but, rather than commiting genocide on us, we were banished to this backwater galaxy until we learn to stop being aggressive little twats...


No, it's more like this. We became bored at some point and decided to create a game ( the universe ). We let the game evolve and sought ways to make it more difficult. We were very competitive at devising rules ( such as physics or even time ). At first, we created "life" in the simplest forms, and came up with time constraints on this life. Then, we made life so it could reproduce.

Later on, we created animals and we were getting close to the perfect game to play. Finally, when we created Humans, we found an organism we could actually insert our "soul" into, in order to experience the game at the highest level. We even rigged it so when we "die", we would forget what happened and start the game over in another body.

We just have to figure out a way to escape it completely, even if just to observe it from the outside temporarily. I think then one would be declared the "winner." I think we would also remind ourselves not to play anymore.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

This is one of my favorite subjects. I think the universe is more like a free floating mixture of everything. We are like bugs floating in a bubble within a swirling mixture of everything inside a random can of soda in another universe.

We can only see that mixture that surrounds our bubble. Beyond that is not even existant to us.

How can the universe have uniform temperarure? That always bothered me. It should be cooler in some parts if the big bang was true.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




How can the universe have uniform temperarure?

It doesn't. Most of it has no temperature at all, being mostly nothing. But, for example, the surface of Venus has a very different temperature from the surface of Earth.
But perhaps you are confusing the CMB (radiation) with temperature.

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
the universe is a cell inside a huge being,humans are a virus



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

Good qestin. I a=m sdrunk. happy holidy.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
How is it possible for the observable universe to be 92 billion light-years wide while only being 13.7 billion years old?

This is an amazing question, and If the universe began as a singularity and is 13.8 billion years old, how can something be 46 billion light years away? Wouldn't that suggest that the universe expanded at a velocity greater than the speed of light?.......... but, i hear you say "That's impossible, as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!"

And if the universe is flat or has negative curvature then the Big Bang doesn't make much sense. How do you get infinite from something undefined? This has always bothered me. The universe to me cannot have negative curvature and defining it as being flat sounds stupid (the earth is flat idea), but if it is a closed universe, then the universe is massively huge. So much so that for what we can see, it looks flat. Like how the earth would look to an ant. A negatively curved universe can easily expand and would give us a limit as to how far back and away we can see before there is a horizon we cannot see past, like a ship on the ocean. (My head actually hurts now)







As technology has evolved, astronomers are able to look back in time to the moments just after the Big Bang. This might seem to imply that the entire universe lies within our view. But the size of the universe depends on a number of things, including its shape and expansion. Just how big is the universe? The truth is, scientists can't put a number on it.

The observable universe

Astronomers have measured the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old. Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light, this means they can look at a region of space that lies 13.8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.

But though the sphere appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter, it is far larger. Scientists know that the universe is expanding. Thus, while scientists might see a spot that lay 13.8 billion light-years from Earth at the time of the Big Bang, the universe has continued to expand over its lifetime. Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years. Centering a sphere on Earth's location in space might seem to put mankind in the center of the universe. However, like that same ship in the ocean, we cannot tell where we lie in the enormous span of the universe. Just because we cannot see land does not mean we are in the center of the ocean; just because we cannot see the edge of the universe does not mean we lie in the center of the universe.

The shape of the universe

The size of the universe depends a great deal on its shape. Scientists have predicted the possibility that the universe might be closed like a sphere, infinite and negatively curved like a saddle, or flat and infinite.

A finite universe has a finite size that can be measured; this would be the case in a closed spherical universe. But an infinite universe has no size by definition.

According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). A flat universe is an infinite universe; thus the size of the universe is infinite.







What do my fellow ATS people, think? do you believe there is any truth in this.....

Will Science prove this correct?

(Mind Blown....)

Source


The way I see it is thus; the universe is like an expanding fishbowl. Inside the bowl, those of us i the water (space) live under a set of laws (psysics). We can't travel faster than light, however, the fishbowl itself doesn't exist in this water (or space) and is thus not subject to the laws of physics as we know them. This leaves the possibility that the universe expands faster than light and fits within all observable phenomenon. It is totally a guess though, just a little veiw into a possible explanation I've made up.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join